I dont have anything against the free market. What bothers me are when a few of the "cool kids" set themselves up as "art critics" and drive the
market with their often random opinions. Random in the sense that there is no objective standard in abstract art.

That bothers me.

A free market would not have someone(s) at the center telling everyone else what was valuable, and having the power to make it so. People would be
making those determinations themselves, based on THEIR needs, wants, tastes and desires.

The issue is the fact that, alas, there is no 'real or pure or permanent objective 'scietific' standards' for any of the Arts in existence - and there
never really was - whether literary, graphic, musical etc. despite the attempts of e.g. the ancient Greeks (e.g. Aristotle in his discussion on
'Drama', for example) to try and formulate mathematical/scientific bases for 'artistic judgment and worth...' or other great thinkers like Leonardo
da Vinci (see his unffinished notes on his planned 'Treatise on Painting' from around 1496, where taste and science are treated as a very nebulous
combination of ideas).

I have noticed that in this world there are 'theorists' on Art and 'doers' of Art - and rarely do the two understand each other. The 'doers' are
mainly instinctual - 'Those who cannot do, teach' etc.

We note that in the Attwood Papers (1785-1787) the great composer Mozart (who like most Composers, was more of a Doer than a Dry Theorist), who
often spoke such sentiments to his pupil Thomas Attwood from England who had studied with the master in Vienna from August 1st 1785 to Feb 20 1787 :

Thos. Attwood related this story years later: 'Herr Mozard used to correct my daily Exercises for him by crossing out what I wrote and writing the
better version above it. One day he said to me -

' My Very Dear Attvott, I am no Theorist - If I see some Thing that seems wrong, I don't show what Rule is broken - I immediately know eactly how
to fix it and do it at once (as you see) - I do not recommend, mein Freund, my own Skolars engage in Dry Study [i.e. of Theory] - it will only confuse
und ruin his ability to compose Catileina [melody], the Herz und Seele of Musick ...and if he [should] make an Error, there will All Ways be several
Maestri who can point out his Mistake to him...'

Throughout history there have been many thoughtful (e.g. philosophically-minded) persons in the world who have come up with compendia or various ideas
to elucidate what are called 'general artistic system standards' (e.g. in Music, we see Fux' Gradus ad Parnassum from the year 1725--who was reacting
against what he termed 'stylistic abuses' in what was 'modern musick' in his own day (he targeted mainly opera singers and composers) - what he wanted
to do was to attempt to consolidate the long-evolving musical 'system of belief of past masters, especially his own musical hero from 200 years
earlier, 'Palestrina, the Light from Praneste') - but like Josef Fux states, when it comes to the subject of artistic 'Taste' (see his discussion 'De
Gustu' when he quotes the famous Axiom of Cicero etal 'de gustibus non disputandum est' meaning, roughly, . 'when it comes to Taste, there can be no
[coherent] Argument...' in other words, 'for people who like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they like...'

Josef Fux seemed very frustrated when he saw that people of his own time in Vienna when it came to 'Musick' seemed to like what they liked 'just
because they liked it', and could not offer any coherent systematic reasons for their liking it - he noted that all sorts of people tended to be moved
by very different artistic things for no apparent coherent logical or systematic reason (at least, according to his methodolgical mind)...

Fux then goes on to list various types of persons who like different types of Musick, much of it which appeared to him to be just so much random noise
e.g. 'I know of one individual who ended up living in his home made tree-house and soon became utterly enraptured by the chirping sounds of all the
birds he heard there - and who before long, refused to listen to any other sounds than birdcalls - yet this same man could not be emotionally affected
by what we call Instrumental or vocal Musick - however beautiful it may seem to others...)

Abstract Art is a reaction to the camera, apparently, which made portrait painting (or any kind of realism-literalism) more or less obsolete to many
minds back in the 1890s and later - although to me the Painter or sculptor can do many more subtle things that a camera cannot produce, even so called
'literalistically-realistically' generated paintings).

When one says 'all you have to do is study the masters and you can derive your Rules from them', one sometimes gets clogged up by terms and
expressions such as 'Who exactly are the Masters' and 'Why is this master considered a master and not that other one...' and 'what criteria are used
to determine what exactly is masterful' in the Arts and once that is decided upon (if ever !!), then what we find is that 'any exact rules' the
'master' actually 'follows' are often countered by so many 'exceptions to the Rule' that we're back to square one again in terms of actual definitions
!

For me, I hold to the Theory that : 'I cannot any more tell you what Great Art is any more than a Dog can tell you what a Cat is ... but he'd know it
when he saw it !!' (the axiom attributed to Samuel Johnson by his friend James Boswell)

Perhaps being 'exposed' to what the Ages have determined to be Great Art (and this is a moving target) might give the student more insight into what
goes into making something great than theorists and their tiresome lists of Rules that must never be broken - all the great masters broke established
Rules - all the time - but I suppose it's how they broke them that sets them apart from the common herd !

edit on 26-5-2011 by Sigismundus because: Typing tooo fast can be hazardous to your Theoretical English Spelling 'Methodology'....

I am an artistic person myself, but I have never been able to wrap my brain around some of the more abstract pieces. True, it really isn't the
artists fault, as they are only painting what they see in their mind and it's really the choice of the public whether or not their work is worthy of
making that artist a living.......

I guess if you look at a piece long enough, you can find some "meaning" in it, just as I can look up into the sky and see what I perceive to be
Jesus' face or something like that....

Sometimes a very talented 'literalist' painter can use his talents literally to paint an 'accurate photo-real' rendition, say, of a tin can on the
street - but at the same time, subjectively, he may have missed an opportunity to use e.g. 'a better angle' for his subject, or perhaps he made the
image on his canvas too large or too small (previse dimensions on a canvas rendition in painting can often make or break an effect - the same image
slightly enlarged or slightly reduced in size can make a vast difference to its 'success' etc.).

So, yes, an artist can literally render an image like a camera lens can at times, but it is the artist's 'subjective choices' that can really make
all the difference (can you teach such subtle, subjective vision via Theoretical ('dry') Rules? ) such as exact distance from the object (i.e. POV,
point of view), use of diffused lighting effects, specific 'artistic' changes in colour or sharpness etc.

A definition of 'Taste' is very very difficult to put into words - and even harder to pin down is exactly what constitutes 'good taste' or what
makes something of 'bad taste' &tc.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
According to you art is whatever I say it is.

If I were an art teacher and I would talk about kittens and then about physics and then about the looks of the desk and chairs for several months,
you you think my school would fire me? I could always tell them: "Its art. Art is what I say it is. Talking about the classroom chairs for 5 weeks is
art. We`ll smear feces on the walls next week. Its art.".

Is art really whatever anyone says it is?

Having just finished the 2nd year of a 3 year MFA degree program, and having taught a few classes
this year, yeah. Those are all valid options.

Want to know one that infuriates me? Cory
Arcangel's photoshop gradients. He even tells you how to make one of your very own in the title of the piece... "Photoshop CS: 72 by 110
inches, 300 DPI, RGB, square pixels, default gradient “Spectrum”, mousedown y=1416 x=1000, mouseup y=208 x=42,” 2008, unique c-print, 75 x 113
inches." So you could follow that formula and make the exact same image, and if you're smart, you put his name on it and pocket the thousands of
dollars that print sells for...

I dont have anything against the free market. What bothers me are when a few of the "cool kids" set themselves up as "art critics" and drive the
market with their often random opinions. Random in the sense that there is no objective standard in abstract art.

That bothers me.

A free market would not have someone(s) at the center telling everyone else what was valuable, and having the power to make it so. People would be
making those determinations themselves, based on THEIR needs, wants, tastes and desires.

No one pays any attention to "art critics" except people that want to or need affirmation. . That is their free will being exercised in choosing to
believe a critic or not. Its the same in advertising any product. Believe the ad and buy or pass it by. No one is forcing anyone in a free market
to purchase a product; there are plenty of options; it's the same in the art world.

Some of my art/films/sculpture etc. has been absolutely trashed by critics in the media, but someone loved it and bought it. That's the free market
being exercised. The critic was free to express his opinion as was the patron to lay down his/her green money.

If a style of art bothers you; don't adopt that style or buy it. Why are the egos so fragile that art, artist, and creative people in general are
seen as somehow threatening.

Feel free to criticize art, artist, or anything you want....just don't expect me to pay any attention to anyone that doesn't have a clue as to what
they are talking about; especially if it is coming from a jealous or critical nature.

If you think you can do better....do it! Live and let live. Life is much to short to be obsessed with what others are doing; In art, their lives,
fashion, sexual preferences, religions or the products they buy.

All this ridiculousness on what is/isn't art doesn't even matter. A person doesn't spend 72 million on a painting because they like art. They spend
72 million on a painting because they want a wall mountable status symbol.

Good thread. I always felt the days of Warhol and such were almost planted. The death of fine art seems planned like everything else wonderful that
has been altered into some sort of marketing, money making or brainwashing.

I remember when I was in elementary school we went to the art museum. I remember seeing things from Italy from the 1600s-1800s and being blown away.
Just in awe at some of the paintings there, and then we would hit the modern art section and I was confused. I remember seeing toilet paper rolls,
like a hundred of them all glued to a wooden pole in random locations. It was on display as a special exhibit. I couldn't figure out how it was
considered art when some of the older things made my mouth drop as to the talent needed to create, while this tp exhibit, I could have done at home
and probably got yelled at and told to clean up the mess.

There is a hierarchy and pecking order in the art world that most aren't aware of and it's more about the business of art than the making of art. You
think it's easy and just a matter of connections; making the connections is much, much harder than making the art. It's a world populated by the
very wealthy, huge egos, architects, designers, real estate Moguls, builders, collectors, thieves, liars, light weight wannbes and outright
charlatans.

It's a competitive world not for the faint of heart, or shrinking violets. It's ugly and mean! It's business.

It can also be very financially rewarding, a wonderful challenge finding your way thru the maze of personalities, media people, critics, and fools.

Luck and physical attractiveness also plays a big part in the art world. It's very similar to the world of entertainment where a well placed BJ both
literally and figuratively, can go a long way in establishing your worth as an artist; as much as an MFA.

Get a portfolio together and join us. It's fun!!!! But be warned this business has plenty of causalities, broken hearts, lost souls, alcoholics,
drug addicts and suicides. Got the guts? come on then....make some art and try to sell it. The American dream awaits.....

I would like to issue a challenge to you. I would like to see you recreate either of the bottom two paintings from your OP.

(not the top one cuz i don't like it.. personal thing).

Once you have tried you will understand how difficult it his to get the textures and effects. The "corners" of the red "box" in the second one. Try
and you will see and then post your efforts here. If they are so talentless and simple you should have no problem.Oh and you can scale them down of
course. These are very large paintings (seeing them online might be part of your problem you might appreciate them more in person)

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.